Australian Non-Resident Fathers’ Relationship and Ongoing Engagement with Their Children: A Critical Focus on Power

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of socsci-3058572: Non-resident fathers' relationship and ongoing engagement with their children: A critical analysis of hindrances

 

Overview

The submitted paper explores an important and often neglected topic in family science: the experiences of non-residential fathers and the factors that shape their involvement with their children after relationship dissolution. The authors conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews that probed the experiences of 19 non-residential fathers with respect to the factors that those fathers believed limited their power and agency to form and maintain relationships with their children. The authors report on several themes that emerged in the interviews. Several themes concerned the fathers’ beliefs about how the end of their relationship with the child’s other parent contributed to their own loss of power, how the quality of this relationship post-dissolution continued to hurt their ability to interact with their children, and structural barriers—such as those related to the courts—similarly hurt their ability to interact with their children.

 

While I found it refreshing to see scholars focus on the experiences of non-residential fathers—and in particular focus on ways in which these fathers lack agency, which contravenes common scholarly perspectives that men’s privilege gives them more power in all social interactions—several major issues limit the contributions of the current work to the existing literature. Therefore, I cannot recommend this for publication at this time.

 

 

Major Issues

1.     The biggest limiting factor in the paper concerns the paper’s attempt to argue that the themes pulled from the interviews are generalizable. For example, the authors claim that “[o]ne major finding of this study is the mother’s power to realise her will with respect to relationships and children” (lines 535-536). The authors are making claims about mothers’ power, but their data comprise these fathers’ beliefs about mothers’ power. There are good theoretical reasons to think the fathers’ may be correct—there is an entire literature on maternal gatekeeping in the psychological literature—but the nature of the evidence doesn’t allow that generalisation.

a.     First, and most importantly, all we have here are the fathers’ stories, which may or may not be true. There is an enormous literature on how and why people’s interpretations and memories of events are unreliable, and we should not be surprised if fathers who are upset by their lack of contact with their own children either misremember or lie about relevant events. I can point to several divorced fathers I personally know (including my own) whose stories about what led to the divorce and why they currently don’t see their children are just flatly untrue. And while I would normally not put my own anecdote in a manuscript review, it serves an important point here: if we are going to take these fathers’ word that their stories are true, we should equally accept the truth of my story. Of course, none of those are scientific, and that’s the point. So when the authors claim that “this paper has largely presented the negative impact of lack of agency and lack of choice on non-resident fathers’ relationships with their children” (594-595) they are accepting the fathers’ stories that agency is really the problem. But to know if this is true, we need systematic observations of the variables in question. We need some objective way of measuring relationship quality, for example, but that’s absent in the paper. At the very least, we need interviews with the children that would confirm the fathers’ stories. Otherwise, both the lack of agency and the poor relationships could be related to a third variable such as the fathers’ own personality characteristics. For example, if we imagine an angry alcoholic after a divorce, that person may blame the terrible mother and the biased courts on his poor relationship with his children, when the reality could be that his own alcoholism caused all those problems. (This, by the way, is the common theme behind every one of the personal stories I mentioned above.)

b.     Second, the sampling method limits external validity. Purpose sampling is a non-probability method and is best used for pilot projects on populations too small to get larger samples. There is a potential use here if the authors’ research question was purely exploratory and meant to identify themes in non-resident fathers’ own narratives and point to those as fruitful avenues of further research. I think this is a fruitful avenue of future research, and if the authors re-wrote the paper to argue that they have found themes in these fathers’ beliefs and that future research should investigate whether they are true, then the research would be stronger. But as it is, there is little reason to trust that these 19 fathers are representative of the population of non-resident fathers.

2.     I found the theoretical underpinnings of the research underwhelming. Although the authors claim to be using Critical Theory, I found it to be superficial. As noted earlier, I appreciated the attempt to show how these fathers lack power, and thus could help us understand these fathers’ loss of power, the authors don’t explain how or why. What in CT predicts how and why these fathers would lose power? What in it helps us understand the resulting damage to relationship quality? The authors claim that their analysis “may reveal new knowledge” (163), but they don’t use CT in a clear way to set up the factors they are looking for in lines 157-163. There are lots of claims about generating knowledge, broadening discourse, etc., but they feel vague. To be theory-driven, the paper should use the theory to make predictions and should use the findings to refine the theory in the discussion. Neither happen. The researchers just note in the discussion that their findings show these fathers are oppressed and that this has become reified as a historical given. But if we removed all mentions of CT from the paper, nothing changes. The conclusions that these fathers felt a lack of power remains. This shows that CT wasn’t used in a deep way to shape or interpret the interviews.

3.     I think the writing needs to be improved before publication. I was confused by how the topics of the various paragraphs jumped around in the introduction and I had a hard time understanding how the argument was building. I also have about 50 grammatical notes ranging from random capitalisation to inconsistent grammar (e.g., in the citations on lines 108 and 109, one uses a comma after the “al” and one uses a period). The paper needs to be proofread.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1	Comments	Revised text
1.The biggest limiting factor in the paper concerns the paper’s attempt to argue that the themes pulled from the interviews are generalizable.   a.First, and most importantly, all we have here are the fathers’ stories, which may or may not be true.   b. the sampling method limits external validity.	These are valid and important points.	The overall text has been revised to reflect the nature of the sample and to qualify the findings as being largely applicable to the Australian context.
2.     I found the theoretical underpinnings of the research underwhelming.   “thus could help us understand these fathers’ loss of power, the authors don’t explain how or why.”	This is an important and very comprehensive observation. However, to fully respond to all the suggested questions and observations seems to be somewhat impractical in the current context. In this regard, the writing by Avelino, 2021 has been very useful.	This is addressed in P5 “resulting in a profound loss of agency, which in turn is a loss of power power (Davies & Wyatt, 2021).” And “Non-resident fathers lack of agency is a lack of power (Davies & Wyatt, 2021)”     And this has been added: “Avelino (2021) highlights the possibility of negative and unintended consequences of social action. There has been considerable social action that strengthens and affirms the mother’s agency post-divorce, plus the incidence of personal sexism that may be experienced by non-resident fathers from mediators, the police and welfare organisations which may be seen to result in non-resident father’s loss of power in the divorce process in the Family Court, loss of decision-making power and loss of autonomy.” p5
3.     I think the writing needs to be improved before publication. I was confused by how the topics of the various paragraphs jumped around in the introduction and I had a hard time understanding how the argument was building.	This is an important observation and the opening paragraphs have been recast to allow for a better flow of ideas and direction.	The entire text has been revised to ensure better flow of ideas and links between parts of the text

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper uses a qualitative approach to examine the experiences of divorced non-resident fathers in diverse family configurations. This perspective on the well-being of non-resident fathers themselves is an important addition to the existing literature. Below are some suggestions that could be addressed in a revision of the manuscript.

1. My main suggestion would be a tighter focus in all sections of the paper on non-resident fathers' (lack of) power within the various social institutions (schools, law enforcement, Family Court) that hinder or enable relationships with their children. The attention spent on Family Court, for example, in the Introduction suggests that institutional barriers are what the authors find most interesting and important, and I would agree that focusing on institutions would allow the paper to make its greatest contribution. In addition, centering the analysis on men's lack of power would seem to fit quite well with a critical theory framework. I think this reframing around institutional power would provide for a stronger and more concise Introduction and Discussion, as well as Results section.

2. "Boundary ambiguity," which seems to be an important concept outlined in the Introduction, is not revisited at all in the Discussion.

3. I believe there is a typo in the first sentence of the first full paragraph of p. 4 (lines 157-160): "... the factors that negatively impact on them and their hinder relationship with their children and which hinder their relationships ...".

4. Step 4 of the Data Analysis (p. 5, lines 217-218), which assigns a "locus of power" to each code, feels like it comes out of nowhere. More explanation is needed, probably both in the Introduction (where "locus of power" is not mentioned) and in the Method.

5. Figure 1 (p. 5) is interesting and helpful, but I wonder if it could be reworked. Why are some concepts represented as ovals and some as rectangles? In a quantitative study, I would understand that some are latent variables and others are observed variables, but that's not the case here. And the arrows are somewhat misleading as well, as the authors are clearly not testing direct and indirect paths among the variables. Does each "stack" of variables as you move from left to right across the figure represent a distinct theme? More could be done integration the figure throughout the Results and Discussion sections.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

In terms of the readability of the paper, I only saw some minor issues with punctuation and parallel structure that could be addressed. 

Author Response

Reviewer 2	Comments	Revised text
1. My main suggestion would be a tighter focus in all sections of the paper on non-resident fathers' (lack of) power within the various social institutions (schools, law enforcement, Family Court) that hinder or enable relationships with their children.	Thank you for this suggestion	The overall text has been revised a more precise focus, to reflect the nature of the sample and to qualify the outcomes.
2. "Boundary ambiguity," which seems to be an important concept outlined in the Introduction, is not revisited at all in the Discussion.	We agree that this is an important concept and this has been expanded.	“Ambiguous loss or grief and boundary ambiguity were noted as a significant stressor for the non-resident fathers due to the loss or lack of meaningful relationships with their children (Tatton, 2023). As indicated boundary ambiguity has a strong impact on non-resident fathers as it highlights the uncertainty of knowing who is in or out of a family system and can be exacerbated by being involved in several family configurations at any one time. This boundary ambiguity has a social, welfare and political, and therefore a structural, basis. Socially, the non-resident father is not seen as part of the ‘resident’ family which now comprises of the mother and children (with perhaps a new partner). The non-resident father continues to have limited parental rights, some duties and financial responsibilities but is no longer seen as part of the ‘family’. Within welfare contexts, the non-resident father is not part of the family as the mother is the usual focus for communications regarding the children with schools, doctors and other health or welfare agents. Politically the non-resident father holds an ambiguous role in the family as they are rarely included in official family profiles from Government departments as these generally focus on who is in a particular ‘household’ not the wider family composition. The financial impact of this focus is comprehensively explored and documented by Dermott (2016).” P27-8
3. I believe there is a typo in the first sentence of the first full paragraph of p. 4 (lines 157-160):	Thank you	This has been addressed.
4. Step 4 of the Data Analysis (p. 5, lines 217-218), which assigns a "locus of power" to each code, feels like it comes out of nowhere. More explanation is needed, probably both in the Introduction (where "locus of power" is not mentioned) and in the Method.	This is a valid point and has been addressed with insertions in both the introduction and in the Data Analysis sections. The new texts are copied in the column to the right.	Introduction “This places the locus of institutional and individual power firmly within the realm of men and masculinity, a concept which underpins much of the writing on non-resident fathers after divorce (Cannito & Mercuri, 2022). As a result, much of the research on non-resident fathers is more concerned with impacts on others, such as children (Altenburger, 2022), ex-partners (Boll & Schueller, 2022), compliance in child support (Cook, 2022) and Family Domestic Violence (FDV) (Chan et al. 2023), rather than the non-resident father himself or what power he actually holds in the divorce process, especially if it is conflictual.  But how might the actual locus of power and its use in this process be conceived, identified and documented? And how might this locus of power contribute to the marginalisaiton of non-resident fathers?” p3   In the Data analysis the text now reads:   “Step 4. To address the academic and wider acceptance of institutional and individual power being based within masculinity in general and men in particular as outlined above, each code was reviewed and assigned a locus of power, identifying “power with’, ‘power to’ and ‘power over’. P11
5. Figure 1 (p. 5) is interesting and helpful, but I wonder if it could be reworked. Why are some concepts represented as ovals and some as rectangles? In a quantitative study, I would understand that some are latent variables and others are observed variables, but that's not the case here. And the arrows are somewhat misleading as well, as the authors are clearly not testing direct and indirect paths among the variables. Does each "stack" of variables as you move from left to right across the figure represent a distinct theme? More could be done integration the figure throughout the Results and Discussion sections.	Thank you for this observation.  There was no particular value attached to the different shapes other than to differentiate moving from one phase to another and it was thought it would aid this transition. The shapes have now been made uniform so as not to give rise to confusion.  On the other hand, the upper figures track the phases of the process while the arrows below give an indication of the general movement and direction of the outcomes.  This has now been made clearer.	This has been reformulated for greater clarity.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an engaging and well-written piece that rightly seeks to offer a balance to what is described as 'The preoccupation with hegemonic masculinity within the academic literature, the focus on masculinities, power relations and the manifestations of masculine domination, typically underpins contemporary discussions of masculinity, gender and power' and does so very well. 

It would benefit from two things.  Firstly, the content of the research (respondents, law systems etc) makes it clear that the study is based in an Australian context.  This should be made clearer in the Abstract and in the introductory passages, and wherever else is necessary. 

Secondly, the piece would benefit from some statistics about numbers of non-residential fathers (presumably Australian stats would do).  

Other than that, I look forward to seeing it in print. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3	Comments	Revised text
the content of the research (respondents, law systems etc) makes it clear that the study is based in an Australian context.  This should be made clearer in the Abstract and in the introductory passages, and wherever else is necessary.	Thank you for this observation.	The text has been revised throughout to reflect this aspect.
the piece would benefit from some statistics about numbers of non-residential fathers (presumably Australian stats would do).	This is a salient point and we would wish to be able to include up to date and relevant statistics for Australia or anywhere else. However, as Poole et al., highlight, statistics on non-resident fathers are not routinely collected by government agencies. Those few statistics that are available are significantly out of date.	It is of interest that accurate statistics as to the number and other details of non-resident fathers are difficult to obtain.  This is because statistics on non-resident fathers are not routinely gathered (Poole et al., 2016) and this may or may not be linked to non-resident fathers’ diverse family configurations and the lack of flexibility of data gathering systems.   However, the following has been added on p3:   “Nevertheless, accurate statistics as to the number and other details of non-resident fathers are reportedly difficult to obtain as data about non-resident fathers are not routinely gathered (Poole et al., 2016), potentially being linked to non-resident fathers’ diverse family configurations and/or the lack of flexibility of data gathering systems. In the Australian context, of the very limited data that is available, it can be noted that in 2003, 87% of children with one non-resident parent had a father living elsewhere (ABS, 2006) and in 2009 82% of non-resident parents were fathers (ABS, 2009).”   It appears that more recent statistics are not available.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The second version of the manuscript is certainly improved—the substantial changes to the discussion that make the conclusions about fathers’ perceptions were the most effectual changes—but the most important core issues remain.

 

1a.        There are a couple of extant examples of claims that the fathers’ reports are true (e.g., line 667 which currently says fathers experienced IPV—a statement that would require some kind of substantiating evidence—would be more accurately phrased as “who reported experiencing”), the vast majority of claims have been fixed. I do think that more could and should have been done in the introduction to set up the research questions to more specifically address perceptions of power imbalances. What are the theoretical implications when one believes they have lost power and agency? The research question (lines 228-229) clearly does not fully grapple with the change to the framing of this study as being about perception. It reads: “How do facets of power hinder non-resident fathers contact and relationship with their children?” Without measures of relationship quality, this research question was not tested by the current study. Additionally, the Results section is nearly unchanged in this regard.

 

1b.       The pervasive edits to specify the Australian context help address my comments about external validity, but the issue was never just that the claims ought to have been tied to one country. The issue is that the sampling method increases the probability that the participants in this research are not representative of divorced Australian fathers. The participants may be angrier, more vindictive, etc. While the authors note this possibility in 715-718, simply acknowledging is not enough. In my estimation, such a small sample with purposive sampling so dramatically increases the threat to external validity that I feel the results are useful only as pilot data. If the authors further edited the discussion to make this clear and to more clearly articulate the research questions they would most like to pursue based on their analyses, the paper may be strong enough to publish.

 

2.         See above. I appreciated the changes, but do not feel the sections on the specific predictions were edited enough.

 

3.         Same as #3.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I also found that while the proofreading was better, it wasn’t enough. For example, there is no end quotation mark around the research question in lines 228-229, “Coercive” is incorrectly capitalized in line 182, etc.

Author Response

Thanks for the opportunity to submit a second revised version of our manuscript on non-resident fathers (Manuscript ID: socsci-3058572). We appreciate the reviews and wish to thank the reviewers for their time in conducting these reviews.  The manuscript has been edited with all changes highlighted in red and all edits summarised in the table below.

Reviewer 1	Comments	Revised text/change
extant examples of claims that the fathers’ reports are true	This is an important and valid observation. Thank you.	The text now reads “who reported experiencing” as suggested.
more could and should have been done in the introduction to set up the research questions to more specifically address perceptions of power imbalances.	This is a valid point and has been addressed by outlining the perception of lack of power and it’ imbalance within the available literature.	The following has been added to the introduction “Power in the context of this paper is deemed to be the ability of a person to cause harm and to realise their will even if others resist it post-divorce, and powerlessness is deemed to be the inability of a person to realise one’s goals, as well as being vulnerable or susceptible to being harmed and/or victimised post-divorce (Davies & Wyatt, 2021). The features of power affecting non-resident fathers post-divorce may be seen to include lack of decision-making power (Violi et al., 2023), lack of agency in childcare (Heers & Szalma, 2018), loss of economic power (Maslauskaitė & Tereškinas, 2020) and lack of resources (Whitley, 2021) and lack of power in the divorce structures and procedures. (Eardley & Griffiths, 2009). Davies and Wyatt (2021) also indicate that there are invisible features of power, and it may be seen that many of these may have a negative impact on non-resident fathers. The invisible features of power include: a lack of public or governmental knowledge of the problems, a lack of statistics being collected, a lack of theory and /or research from their own perspective, a lack of control on factors that may impact on them directly and the lack of politics from their perspective may play a role through the lack of funding for social support programs and research and that there be no panic in relation to their experiences or the consequences for them.”
The research question (lines 228-229) clearly does not fully grapple with the change to the framing of this study as being about perception.	Thank you for this observation	This has been modified to read: ““How are facets of power perceived to hinder non-resident fathers contact and relationship with their children?”.”
The issue is that the sampling method increases the probability that the participants in this research are not representative of divorced Australian fathers.	An important and valid observation	The following has been added to the text: “It is acknowledged that the sampling method used may have increased the probability that the participants in this research are not representative of all divorced Australian fathers.”
such a small sample with purposive sampling so dramatically increases the threat to external validity that I feel the results are useful only as pilot data	Thank you	The text has been added to the limitations section: “The purposive sampling strategy, common in qualitative research, means that given the sample size, this study may perhaps be best seen as a pilot study that could lead to a much larger, more comprehensive and inclusive study.”
If the authors further edited the discussion to make this clear and to more clearly articulate the research questions they would most like to pursue based on their analyses,	Noted and addressed	The following has been added as a qualifier: “(despite being a comparatively small sample)”
“Coercive” is incorrectly capitalized in line 182	Thank you for this observation	This has now been addressed

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed my comments on a previous version of the manuscript fully and successfully. The article is much improved and ready to make a contribution to the literature.

Author Response

Thanks for the opportunity to submit a second revised version of our manuscript on non-resident fathers (Manuscript ID: socsci-3058572). We appreciate the reviews and wish to thank the reviewers for their time in conducting these reviews. 

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Continuing the numbering theme from my first review:

1. Unfortunately, the edits are not sufficient. The authors continue to add text rather than delete or modify existing text to address the fundamental issue that their study is of fathers' perceptions of power differential, not actual power differential. Some of the authors' most direct explanations of their interest in power come in Lines 82-92 and 211-222, and in both of those important sections the authors focus exclusively on questions about power dynamics in the real world, not fathers' perception of those differences.

2. Without a substantial discussion of perceptions of power, the role of CT to motivate predictions related to fathers' perceptions of power can not be explained.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

3. I have not felt that the authors have done a sufficient job to proofread. In previous versions, I listed select examples of poor proofreading but hoped that the authors would then do a much more thorough job on their own. Yet, issues remain. Another example: lines 201 and 204 use different capitalisation for "proxy." Lines 170 and 204 use different punctuation after " et al." Lines 214 and 216 each contain references missing necessary spaces. These issues are pervasive and unprofessional.

Author Response

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised version of our manuscript on non-resident fathers (Manuscript ID: socsci-3058572). We appreciate the reviews and comments and thank the reviewers for their time in conducting these reviews.  The manuscript has been edited with all changes highlighted in red and edits summarised in the table below.

 

Reviewer comment	Observation	Response
1. Unfortunately, the edits are not sufficient. The authors continue to add text rather than delete or modify existing text to address the fundamental issue that their study is of fathers' perceptions of power differential, not actual power differential. Some of the authors' most direct explanations of their interest in power come in Lines 82-92 and 211-222, and in both of those important sections the authors focus exclusively on questions about power dynamics in the real world, not fathers' perception of those differences.	We have taken note of these and have attempted to modify the text throughout the manuscript	Since there are numerous changes throughout the manuscript, it is not possible to reproduce the changes or page numbers here. We apologise for this.
2. Without a substantial discussion of perceptions of power, the role of CT to motivate predictions related to fathers' perceptions of power can not be explained.	The theoretical discussions on ‘perceptions of power’ are interesting and informative and could be a valuable inclusion in this discussion.	We acknowledge that the inclusion of a discussion on ‘perceptions of power’ would be an interesting and valuable inclusion, but keeping in mind that it has been noted that we should delete or edit what is already in the paper, we felt it inappropriate to add any further text to the overall manuscript.
have not felt that the authors have done a sufficient job to proofread. In previous versions, I listed select examples of poor proofreading but hoped that the authors would then do a much more thorough job on their own. Yet, issues remain. Another example: lines 201 and 204 use different capitalisation for "proxy." Lines 170 and 204 use different punctuation after " et al." Lines 214 and 216 each contain references missing necessary spaces. These issues are pervasive and unprofessional.	Our apologies for this oversight.	Thank you, we believe we have now addressed the issues identified.